Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Nail]

Making monks better isn't the issue, IMHO. THere are other (and better!) ways to do that. Blurring the distinction between natural attacks and unarmed strikes don't make monks better.

 

[Umbran]

It is 100% clear to me that the wording of the rules requires interpretation to answer the question. The answer depends on the weight one gives to each of the disparate references, which are not consistently written.

There is no objective source for that weighting - ergo, both sides have validity.

 

[Zimri]

No. That's just too good to allow, and logic can be applied to prevent that from happening thoug, strictly rules-speaking, probably yes.

Of course, even at that what really bad things would happen? The monk would use up two very valuable feats to get a two-step increase in damage, right? Hardly game-breaking. It might actually make them more-or-less effective in offensive combat. (ooohhh - scary stuff )

But then the exchange of viewpoints being held currently is settled unless I missed something of course.

1) Allowing that all bodies save that of the warforged are more or less natural and can be used to hit stuff most creatures have a natural attack that can be used as a weapon to hit stuff.

2) That said, those attacks (all other pre-reqs being met) can be improved by "improved natural attack"

3) All monks start with "improved unarmed strike" which improves their unarmed (natural) attack

4) If IUS and INA can not stack then there is no reason to have this debate at all as IUS is mandatory for monks.


If you wanna talk scary I am looking at a changeling monk/ascetic rogue/warshaper. Sure it's not completely minmaxed and certainly not "optimized" but fun as heck.

 

[Artoomis]

Making monks better isn't the issue, IMHO. THere are other (and better!) ways to do that. Blurring the distinction between natural attacks and unarmed strikes don't make monks better.

The class itself blurs the distinction between and monks unarmed attacks and natural AND manufactured weapons.

And blurring that distinction DOES make monks better since it allows them to qualify for "spells and effects" as if they had both manufactured weapons and natural weapons with their unarmed strikes.

 

[Artoomis]

It is 100% clear to me that the wording of the rules requires interpretation to answer the question. The answer depends on the weight one gives to each of the disparate references, which are not consistently written.

There is no objective source for that weighting - ergo, both sides have validity.

I agree, and am astounded that most folks don't agree with this.

 

[DungeonMaester]

It is 100% clear to me that the wording of the rules requires interpretation to answer the question. The answer depends on the weight one gives to each of the disparate references, which are not consistently written.

There is no objective source for that weighting - ergo, both sides have validity.

Exactly. DM1 says you can use Wish to gain Regeneration 20/-
DM2 says "Hellz no n00b, that chara iz sux0rs."


Rules are better left open ended for Dms to mold into there world. Which is why I always Disregaurd the FAQ/Errata, They always end up making it worse then it allready is. Like making wild shape no long like polymorph.

*Rolls up newspaper* Bad WotC.

Sorry for any typos in advance.

---Rusty

 

[Sidekick]

The class itself blurs the distinction between and monks unarmed attacks and natural AND manufactured weapons.

And blurring that distinction DOES make monks better since it allows them to qualify for "spells and effects" as if they had both manufactured weapons and natural weapons with their unarmed strikes.

Well, yeah – that’s what that rules addition is for. Monks can’t boost their unarmed strike through picking up a new set of +1 flaming keen limbs, so WotC have allowed them to benefit from natural attack boosting feats, spells that affect weapons & natural attacks (magic weapns & magic fangs) and so forth.

Honestly I don’t really see what the problem is, sure someone can ‘abuse it’, bet its not like someone who’d do that in an ACTUAL game wouldn’t do that with every other rules ambiguity. And frankly I find that people who are trying to 'abuse the rules' and 'win D&D' are wankers anyway. Nothing we agree upon here is going to change that.

I think that here at Enworld we have a great group of talented, experienced DMs and players. You’re all going to have to agree to disagree.

It is 100% clear to me that the wording of the rules requires interpretation to answer the question. The answer depends on the weight one gives to each of the disparate references, which are not consistently written.

There is no objective source for that weighting - ergo, both sides have validity.

QFT.

It’s a GAME guys. So what if the rules are a bit ambiguous. There’s no such thing as a 100% totally clear rule or law in the world, nor is there in this game. After 4 pages on this thread, another 5 or so on the last one and gods knows how many on the one’s before that I think it should now be clear that there is no consensus...

 

[Nail]

It’s a GAME guys.

Fortunately, no one is debating that point.

 

[Zimri]

Fortunately, no one is debating that point.

Given my real life I'ld gladly switch...... asuming I could bring my gaming group with me. 8)

 

[Kem]

Because it's considered a natural attack form for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons, and "treat a natural weapon as one size larger" is an effect that improves a natural weapon.

-Hyp.

But you can't choose it.